Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

This may have been discussed before, but what you do think of Phlox and Archer's actions in Dear Doctor? I think Archer and Phlox come off as not very heroic, in fact they seem somewhat villainous in this episode.

Phlox and Archer do nothing, while a race of people dies from a plague, they could cure it, but choose not to because of reasoning based on eugenics. This seems like the behavior more suitable for a villain then a hero. It would be like a movie where some bureaucrat and a scientist in the West developed a cure for a plague affecting an African country, but decide not to give it to this country and justify this through eugenics. Then the movie expects us to sympathize with this bureaucrat and scientist.

This has been discussed MANY times, and yes they basically let a species die because of racist pseudoscientific reasons.

Trek writes don't understand evolution.

Another example of the monstrousness of the PD as well even though this was technically before the PD.

A true Star Trek low.

I've never re-watched this episode and don't plan to either.

I suppose we should happy there wasn't a scene where Phlox and Archer spend a video of themselves mixing the cure with champaign and then drinking it, to the Valakians.

I do think this topic is serious enough to merit a lot of discussion. Phlox and Archer come off as rather callous and psychopathic in this episode. The logic they use to justify not giving the cure to the Valakians seems similar to the ideas you would find in Nazi Germany: "One race is holding another race back and that race needs to be destroyed for the other race to thrive." This may be one of the most villainous things a Star Fleet captain has done and he was supposed to be the hero.

"One race is holding another race back and that race needs to be destroyed for the other race to thrive."

Stand by for mandatory "Archer didn't kill anyone, he just refused to interfere with teh natural selexsh0n!"

It's kinda disappointing to see how many people don't realise that refusing to aid a man in mortal peril is the same as killing him yourself. The choice that Phlox and Archer made was not only severely unethical, it was also appallingly immoral.

__________________"Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines."
― Bertrand Russell

"One race is holding another race back and that race needs to be destroyed for the other race to thrive."

Stand by for mandatory "Archer didn't kill anyone, he just refused to interfere with teh natural selexsh0n!"

It's kinda disappointing to see how many people don't realise that refusing to aid a man in mortal peril is the same as killing him yourself. The choice that Phlox and Archer made was not only severely unethical, it was also appallingly immoral.

I don't think Archer and Phlox are guilty of committing genocide, they didn't create the disease so they aren't actively responsible for it. They did nothing and as Edmund Burke said "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".

Archer and Phlox are comparable to the politicians in the West who made excuses to do nothing while the genocide in Rwanda was occurring. However Phlox and Archer are worse, because them giving the cure to Valakians would have taken a lot less effort then stopping the genocide in Rwanda and then they have the gall to think their inaction makes them morally superior to others. Its a screwed up script when the "heroes" allow a great tragedy to occur and then justify their inaction with the same eugenics pseudo science the Nazis used to justify their actions. Phlox and Archer may not have actively committed genocide, but they did is immoral.

Simply deciding not to help the Valakians to give the Menk a chance to evolve was bad enough, but what makes it even worse is that Phlox had the cure and he refused to give it to them. That's a serious breach of medical ethics, and I don't think any real doctor would ever do what he did.

Simply deciding not to help the Valakians to give the Menk a chance to evolve was bad enough, but what makes it even worse is that Phlox had the cure and he refused to give it to them. That's a serious breach of medical ethics, and I don't think any real doctor would ever do what he did.

yeah, this was what put it over the top in its horror. It's one thing if Phlox had refused to start looking for a cure, but he actually FOUND THE CURE and didn't give it to a dying race!

Phlox was like a guy with a big jug full of water standing there, staring at someone dying of thirst and just shaking his head.

If Phlox had these views on race and eugenics he shouldn't have gone into being a doctor in the first place.

Another example of the monstrousness of the PD as well even though this was technically before the PD.

We even get a line to that effect from Archer near the end. "Someday, there may be a directive to get us to act like douchebags. Until that day comes, we must resolve to act like douchebags on our own."

OK, I paraphrase.

Someone once wrote that from the time of TNG onwards, a lot of Star Trek writers hated the restrictions of the Prime Directive, and quite deliberately set out to portray it in the worst possible light. Whether this was based on inside knowledge or was pure speculation I don't know, but it certainly explains a lot.

I kinda liked the episode, and that the ending was played with the characters making this decision and not liking it. And I liked the idea Enterprise presented (though didn't do enough of, imo) that the heroes were not super squeaky clean, made mistakes, and poor decisions as they were trying to learn what it means to be space-faring.

__________________
"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -- Christopher Hitchens

Choosing to let millions of people die on the off chance that some other people might develop intelligence in a few thousand years has nothing to do with what it means to travel through space. That excuse is especially poor, since the idea came from a man who was very familiar with space travel and interacting with other species.